Reports: Israeli ships attack aid flotilla

reply to post by Dagar

This was an act of piracy in International waters... nothing more and nothing less.

That is quite correct my wise friend Dagar.

Worse still because they were Turkish flagged vessels Turkey does have an obligation to intercede and demand redress and compensation or risk it's own legitimacy at home.

If they fail to act, then it plays right into the hands of the radicals and makes it all the more hard for the moderates to pursue real peace and partnership with Israel and pro-Israeli nations.

This is for the most part what leads to terrorism, when it becomes impossible to break the strangle hold of agressor nations, and the moderate politicians have no success in dealing with that agression.

This then gives rise to the chauvinists and extremists and gives them more credibility in the eyes of the disaffected people that the moderates can not adequately protect or address.

Most people don’t actually think these things down and across a couple of levels and only scratch the surface as far as the real implications and effects of such actions.

Of course our media never talks about such things as it looks to avoid culpability of the aggressor nations and defend their gunboat diplomacy and often indiscriminate use of violence.

It becomes a Catch 22 because of our inability to perceive and address the root problems that then just lead to circular revolving events of the same bad history repeating itself over and over again.

Thanks for posting my friend.

Originally posted by ANNED
There seams to be a conflict in where the ships were attacked.

The reports i get is the Israelis boarded the ships 8 miles off the coast in a published military exclusion zone.

Other reports are that it was 8 miles off the coast in international waters.

Most countries in the world now set international waters as 12 miles.
and the anti Israeli people are saying international waters are 3 miles.

And it has long been international rights to set a military exclusion zone off a coast where military hostilities are under way as long as its published in international notice to mariners.
The US did it in Vietnam, Iraq and Cuba.

This means that you enter at your own risk.

I see the UN doing nothing because the UN has a system in place to bring in aid to Gaza.
Plus the military exclusion zone has been on going for years.

I believe that only israel see the area as an exlusion zone , under international law it is an illegal blockade, and under laws of sea is under gaza controll

It is also debateable about the military activities as israel calls it an embargoe ..which is also seen as illegal


[edit on 31-5-2010 by gambon]

I read that the flotilla was 67km outside territorial waters. They were at stop, waiting until daylight to proceed further.

I suppose you all supported apartheid south Africa as well ???

This is hopefully the catalyst needed...

Incidentally, a handful of other boats intend sailing for Gaza within this week....


More to come methinks....

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You misunderstand international law. International law is clear that any ships trying to break a blockade imposed by a nation can be intercepted. Motif was clear that the flotilla intended to break the blockade. If motif is present, even within international waters, Israel can intercept.

reply to post by Logarock


Why oh why , pray tell , would armed soldiers attack a ship in international waters and expect any other type of response to said attack ?

you are wrong bugman..

care to back that up??

Posted by Vitchilo in other thread....




www.liveleak.com...

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

I think any terrorists would be hard pressed to paint such a frightening picture of themselves.

And just what kind of picture does the knife wielding terrorist who slices off the head of his brother paint of himself?

About the same picture as the person who would watch it for entertainment.

Yet this reminds of Rigi the Iranian Terrorist that everyone cried about when he was recently captured by the Iranian regime.

Rigi had showed Dan Rather a video tape of him cutting off someone's head, and is known to have shot his brother's wife when she was asleep.

However because he was from an Iranian tribe that was fighting against the Islamic regime, even though he too is a Muslim and a violent terrorist, he was 'our' kind of terrorist, in the old the enemy of my enemy is my friend dictum of the Middle East that our Zionists affiliations have dragged us into thinking like.

You either hate some terrorists and terrorist actions or all terrorists and terrorists actions.

If you condone some but not others then you do in fact support terrorism.

The Zionist Israeli State was born out of Terrorism against the British Authorities that were running the mandate, and included killing many White Christians of British and European Nationality including the cold blooded murder of a U.N. Special Envoy and his aide from Sweden.

So you either dissaprove of all terrorism or you don't.

If you dissaprove of all terrorism then you can't condone Israeli and Zionist Terrorism or defend it, other wise your whole terrorism argument goes out the window.



[edit on 31/5/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth


This had nothing to do with Hamas. Try to stay on topic.

Originally posted by freetree64

Posted by Vitchilo in other thread....




www.liveleak.com...

you would get idiots acting like that in any country tbh especially after what happened at the israeli embassy in turkey


[edit on 31-5-2010 by gambon]

Originally posted by ANNED
There seams to be a conflict in where the ships were attacked.

The reports i get is the Israelis boarded the ships 8 miles off the coast in a published military exclusion zone.

Other reports are that it was 8 miles off the coast in international waters.

Most countries in the world now set international waters as 12 miles.
and the anti Israeli people are saying international waters are 3 miles.

And it has long been international rights to set a military exclusion zone off a coast where military hostilities are under way as long as its published in international notice to mariners.
The US did it in Vietnam, Iraq and Cuba.

This means that you enter at your own risk.

I see the UN doing nothing because the UN has a system in place to bring in aid to Gaza.
Plus the military exclusion zone has been on going for years.

Ahem....Your sources are mistaken. Everything I have read from the beginning of this event up till now has stated it was in International waters.
TELEGRAPH

Kevin Ovenden, aboard the lead ship, the Turkish Mavi Marmara, sensed a tense game of cat-and-mouse in the Mediterranean sea was about to come to a dramatic climax. Having set off on Sunday hoping to avoid the Israeli military, he wrote on his blog: "We are 90 miles away from land – 22 miles further than the Israeli-decided 68-mile exclusion zone – but are being approached by an Israeli vessel.

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

You misunderstand international law. International law is clear that any ships trying to break a blockade imposed by a nation can be intercepted. Motif was clear that the flotilla intended to break the blockade. If motif is present, even within international waters, Israel can intercept.

They had yet to try to break the blockade.

You misunderstand International Law.

There are also rules for intercepting the ship under such conditions that include prizing it and petitioning the Court of the Hague for transfer of ownership of the vessel.

If a nation does not follow through with prizing, and takes it's case before the Maritime Court in the Hague then it has no case, and it is pirating.

You will want to spend a couple years of law school before arguing with proto about the law, even attorneys do a poor job when it comes to that!

Has anyone noticed how quickly the original tape has been forgotten and replaced by the edited and captioned one made by the IDF? Kinda sad.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


As I said in another thread, this also has the capacity to rip NATO apart.

Having had a Turkish vessel attacked by an Isaeli military force, and Turkish citizens killed and injured, Turkey are well within their rights to invoke that part of the NATO treaty that states ' An attack on one member is an attack on all'

I really can't see the USA going for that one, not in a million years... I can however see Turkey resigning from NATO, and denouncing the alliance for being worse than useless and 'not fit for purpose' ...

If that happens it might also make one or two other members take a second look at the usefulness of an Alliance that depends on whether any retaliation for an attack on a fellow member (by the US) depends on whether the attacker is Israel or not.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Has anyone noticed how quickly the original tape has been forgotten and replaced by the edited and captioned one made by the IDF? Kinda sad.

some famous guy said 'Truth is the first casualty of war'.
You are not supposed to notice such things,
much less speak of them
in time the truth will be drown'd by lies,

I didn't plan on posting in this thread, but there is far too much ignorance and speculation going here.

ATS's motto is afterall "Deny Ignorance"

Some Facts:

The last known coordinates of the flotilla.

Latitude: 32.64113
Longitude: 33.56727

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8968f88899e0.gif[/atsimg]

This places them not in International Waters.

This actually places them within Israel's Exclusive Economic Zone according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

www.un.org...

This means any foreign ships, must comply with laws and regulations adopted by the coastal state, in this case Israel's.

This is an example map of Israel's EEZ along with offshore gas operations.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/51c6f7bc18f0.jpg[/atsimg]

Article73

Enforcement of laws and regulations of the coastal State

1. The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.

www.un.org...

Israel was within its full rights under UN Convention. This flotilla was not within international waters and was in violation of Israeli laws and regulations.





[edit on 31/5/10 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by benoni


www.icrc.org...

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT




Neutral merchant vessels




67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:




(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

Prior warning was given numerous times. The flotilla was told exactly what would happen if they continued and didn't turn around immediatlely. International law supports Israel's interception obviously.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Bugman82]

Now that i've seen the footage again i really wonder if that were really white flags on the vessel? [as in we-come-and-welcome-you-in-peace]Little strange to welcome the soldiers then with knives and metal bars, but he only that low-life terrorist scumbags can think of that..explains also why the IDF fast-roped a bit uncertain and slow down the deck..

reply to post by Foppezao


yes especially as this was the last ship to be taken , the others having been taken peaceably already, why did this ship choose to fight?when the others did come in peace?